Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?

From: Rob Irving <RobIrving@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:14:30 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:36:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?
>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:08:01 -0500>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>>Subject: Re: Santilli Knew 'Tent Footage' Was a Fraud?>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
James,
>One obvious problem was the absence of conclusive evidence,>although no preceding claims of 'non-terrestrial contact' had>provided this!
<snip>
>Are there any preceding or subsequent cases which,>comparatively, come close to providing so much scientifically>grounded substantiation?>Overall, surely enough to merit consideration as 'best evidence'>ever.>You won't see it in the top 10...20...30... though!>Why is that?
Interesting question. It seems to me that in the ET-school of
ufology, the reason hokey evidence is allowed to co-exist so
contentedly with more likely evidence is because as soon as the
evidence becomes too interesting to ignore the subject will be
appropriated by institutional science and better minds than are
currently available to it. A disaster for some.
The rejection of this 'best evidence' (by believers, anyway), I
think, emerged from a genuine fear that it was real. If it were
real, a lot of self-conferred authorities, pseudoscientists and
hucksters would be trampled in the rush for understanding.
Rob